Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-2bgxn Total loading time: 2.178 Render date: 2022-12-06T12:06:53.758Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2020

Emily Kneebone
University of Nottingham
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Oppian's Halieutica
Charting a Didactic Epic
, pp. 412 - 449
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Adams, J. N. 1995. Pelagonius and Latin Veterinary Terminology in the Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adrados, F. R. 1999. History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. 2 vols, trans. Ray, L.. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agosta, G. 2003. ‘Due note testuali al proemio dei Cynegetica (I 26, 32–34)’, Eikasmos 14: 133–60.Google Scholar
Agosta, G. 2009. Ricerche sui Cynegetica di Oppiano. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Agosti, G. 2005. ‘L’etopea nella poesia greca tardoantica’, in Amato, E. and Schamp, J. eds. ἨΘΟΠΟΙΙΑ. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive. Salerno: Helios: 3460.Google Scholar
Agosti, G. 2008. ‘Oppianus of Anazarbos in Kilikia (176–180 ce)’, in Keyser, P. T. and Irby-Massie, G. L. eds. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists. The Greek Tradition and Its Many Heirs. New York: Routledge: 593–4.Google Scholar
Albertsen, L. L. 1967. Das Lehrgedicht. Eine Geschichte der antikisierenden Sachepik in der neueren deutschen Literatur. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel.Google Scholar
Albertsen, L. L. 1970. ‘Lehrgedicht’, Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 26: 113–15.Google Scholar
Albertsen, L. L. 1976. ‘Das Lehrgedicht und die deutsche Aufklärung’, Orbis Litterarum 31: 224–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alden, M. 2017. Para-Narratives in the Odyssey. Stories in the Frame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amarasinghe, U. 1962. Dryden and Pope in the Early Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Amato, E. 2003. Review of Rebuffat 2001. Plekos 5: 153–68.Google Scholar
Amato, E. 2005. Dionisio di Alessandria: Descrizione della Terra Abitata. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman World. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. 1997. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Andreae, B. 2003. Antike Bildmosaiken. Mainz: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Anhalt, A. K. 2001–2002. ‘A matter of perspective: Penelope and the nightingale in Odyssey 19.512–534’, CJ 97: 145–59.Google Scholar
Armstrong, R. H. 2008. ‘Classical translations of the Classics: the dynamics of literary tradition in retranslating epic poetry’, in Lianeri, A. and Zajko, V. eds. Translation and the Classic: Identity as Change in the History of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 169202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnott, W. G. 1985. ‘Aristotle on comedy?’, CR 35: 304–6.Google Scholar
Arnott, W. G. 1991. ‘A lesson from the Frogs’, G&R 38: 1823.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1990. ‘The poetic theory of the Stoic “Aristo”’, Apeiron 23: 147201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 1992. ‘Neoptolemus and the classification of Poetry’, CP 87: 206–31.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1995. ‘Philodemus on censorship, moral utility, and formalism in poetry’, in Obbink, D. ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 148–77.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 2007. ‘Myth and philosophy in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus’, GRBS 47: 413–29.Google Scholar
Asquith, P. J. 1984. ‘The inevitability and utility of anthropomorphism in description of primate behaviour’, in Harré, R. and Reynolds, V. eds. The Meaning of Primate Signals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 138–76.Google Scholar
Asquith, P. J. 1986. ‘Anthropomorphism and the Japanese and Western traditions in primatology’, in Else, J. G. and Lee, P. C. eds. Primate Ontogeny, Cognition and Social Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 6171.Google Scholar
Asper, M. 1997. Onomata allotria. Zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Assaël, J. 2001. ‘Phémios “autodidaktos”’, RPh 75: 721.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. 1998. ‘Introduction’, in Atherton, C., Roy, J., Sommerstein, A. H. and de Martino, F. eds. Form and Content in Didactic Poetry. Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 5. Bari: Levante Editori.Google Scholar
Aurigemma, S. 1960. L’Italia in Africa: Tripolitania. Vol I. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.Google Scholar
Ausfeld, A. 1876. De Oppiano et scriptis sub eius nomine traditis. Gotha: Engelhard-Reyher.Google Scholar
Austin, N. 1972. ‘Name magic in the Odyssey’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, N. 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Austin, R. G. 1964. P. Vergili Maronis, Aeneidos Liber Secundus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bader, F. 1989. La langue des dieux, ou l’hermétisme des poètes indo-européens. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Bagordo, A. 2009. ‘Zum anósteos bei Hesiod (Erga 524): Griechische Zoologie, indogermanische Dichtersprache oder etwas anderes?’, Glotta 85: 3158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bär, S. 2007. ‘Quintus Smyrnaeus und die Tradition des epischen Musenanrufs’, in Baumbach, and Bär, eds.: 29–64.Google Scholar
Bär, S. 2010. ‘Quintus of Smyrna and the Second Sophistic’, HSCP 105: 287316.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 1981. Ernest Hemingway: Selected Letters 1917–1961. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. J. 2013. The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, D. 1996. ‘“The golden age is proclaimed”? The Carmen Saeculare and the renascence of the golden race’, CQ 46: 434–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, S. A. 1971. The Imagery of Euripides. A Study in the Dramatic Use of Pictorial Language. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1982. The Presocratic Philosophers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1985. ‘Editor’s notes’, Phronesis 30: 99110.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. 2002. Staged Narrative. Poetics and the Messenger in Greek Tragedy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barringer, J. M. 2001. The Hunt in Ancient Greece. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bartley, A. N. 2003. Stories from the Mountains, Stories from the Sea: The Digressions and Similes of Oppian’s Halieutica and the Cynegetica. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, A. N. 2005. ‘What’s fishing like? The rhetoric of similes in Oppian’s Halieutica’, Classics Ireland 12: 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, T. S. 1994. Power and Knowledge. Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine under the Roman Empire. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bassino, P. 2019. The ‘Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi’. A Commentary. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baumann, W. 1912. Quaestiones de animalium historia Aelianeae et Oppianeae. Marburg: Koch.Google Scholar
Baumbach, M. and Bär, S. eds. 2012. Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and its Reception. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, E. F. 2001. ‘Notes on Hesiod’s Works and Days, 383–828’, AJP 122: 155–71.Google Scholar
Beall, E. F. 2005. ‘Hesiod’s treatise on justice: Works and Days 109–380’, CJ 101: 161–82.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, M.-C. 2016. The Sea in the Greek Imagination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R. S. P. 1969. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2002. ‘Fish in the ancient economy’, in Ascani, K., Gabrielsen, V., Kvist, K., and Rasmussen, A. H. eds. Ancient History Matters. Studies Presented to Jens Erik Skydsgaard on His Seventieth Birthday. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 2937.Google Scholar
Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2005. ‘The technology and productivity of ancient sea-fishing’, in id. ed. Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press: 8395.Google Scholar
Benedetti, F. 1976–1977. ‘De Eustathii Grammatici studiis Oppianeis’, AFLPer 14: 431–41.Google Scholar
Benedetti, F. 2005. Studi su Oppiano. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics Vol. 1, trans. Meek, E.. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bers, V. 1974. Enallage and Greek Style. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettini, M. 2008. Voci: Antropologia sonora del mondo antico. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Bianchi, E., Brill, S., and Holmes, B. eds. 2019. Antiquities Beyond Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bing, P. 1988. The Well-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bing, P. 1993. ‘Aratus and his audiences’, in Schiesaro, , Mitsis, , and Clay, eds.: 99–109.Google Scholar
Biraschi, A. M. 2005. ‘Strabo and Homer: a chapter in cultural history’, in Dueck, D., Lindsay, H., and Pothecary, S. eds. Strabo’s Cultural Geography. The Making of a Kolossourgia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 7385.Google Scholar
Birley, A. R. 1966. Marcus Aurelius. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birley, A. R. 1974. ‘Roman frontiers and Roman frontier policy: some reflections on Roman imperialism’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland 3: 1325.Google Scholar
Birley, A. R. 2000. ‘Hadrian to the Antonines’, in Bowman, A. K., Garnsey, P., and Rathbone, D. eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XI: The High Empire ad 70–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 132–94.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1955. ‘Metaphor’, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaisdell, H. F. 1969. The Philosophical Fisherman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. 1973. The Anxiety of Influence. A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blaise, F. 1992. ‘L’épisode de Typhée dans la Théogonie d’Hésiode (v. 820–885): la stabilisation du monde’, REG 105: 349–70.Google Scholar
Blanchard-Lemée, M. et al. 1996. Mosaics of Roman Africa: Floor Mosaics from Tunisia. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Blößner, N. 2005. ‘Hesiod und die “Könige”. Zu Theogonie 79–103’, Mnemosyne 58: 2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, M. W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies. A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollack, J. 1976. ‘Note sur l’épisode des Planctes’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 3: 173–6.Google Scholar
Bona Quaglia, L. 1973. Gli Erga di Esiodo. Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Borgognoni, R. 2007. ‘Animali al servizio della retorica: a proposito della philia tra vipere e tra scorpioni in Temistio (Or. 7.90BC)’, Prometheus 33: 6678.Google Scholar
Borthwick, E. K. 1967. ‘Trojan leap and Pyrrhic dance in Euripides’ Andromache 1129–41’, JHS 87: 1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boshnakov, K. 2004. Pseudo-Skymnos (Semos von Delos?). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Bosworth, A. B. 1988. From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. 1972. ‘Greek intellectuals and the imperial cult in the second century AD’, in den Boer, W. ed. Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain. Geneva: Fondation Hardt: 179206.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. 1985. ‘The hexameter poems ascribed to Oppian’, in Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W. eds. The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Vol. I: Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 653–4.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. 1989. ‘Poetry and poets in Asia and Achaia’, in Walker, S. and Cameron, A. eds. The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire. Papers from the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium. London: Institute of Classical Studies: 198205.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. 1990. ‘Greek poetry in the Antonine age’, in Russell, D. A. ed. Antonine Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 5390.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. 2004. ‘Denys d’Alexandrie: un poète grec dans l’empire romain’, REA 106: 177–85.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. 2019. Longus: Daphnis and Chloe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. R. and Haubold, J. H. eds. 2009. Plato and Hesiod. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, A. J. 1979. ‘Introduction’, in ‘Virgil’s Georgics’ (Ramus Special Issue), Ramus 8: 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, K. 2000. ‘Animalizing the slave: the truth of fiction’, JRS 90: 110–25.Google Scholar
Breitenberger, B. 2007. Aphrodite and Eros. The Development of Erotic Mythology in Early Greek Poetry and Cult. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1971. Horace on Poetry. The Ars Poetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brioso Sánchez, M. 1994. ‘La épica didáctica helenístico-imperial’, in López Férez, J. A. ed. La épica griega y su influencia en la literatura española (aspectos literarios, sociales y educativos). Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas: 253–82.Google Scholar
Brisson, L. 1998 [1994]. Plato the Myth Maker, trans. Naddaf, G.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brisson, L. 2004 [1996]. How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology, trans. Tihanyi, C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broich, U. 1963. ‘Das Lehrgedicht als Teil der epischen Tradition des englischen Klassizismus’, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift N.S. 13: 147–63.Google Scholar
Browne, T. 1646. Pseudodoxia Epidemica: or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenets and Commonly Presumed Truths. London: Printed by T. H. for Edward Dod.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1963. Review of Meyer, Die Außenpolitik des Augustus, JRS 53: 170–6.Google Scholar
Budelmann, F. 2002. ‘Classical commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on ancient Greek literature’, in Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S. eds. The Classical Commentary. Histories, Practices, Theory. Leiden: Brill: 141–69.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. S. 2014. ‘The death of Odysseus in the Odyssey and the Telegony’, Philologia Antiqua 7: 111–22.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. 1985Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical, trans. Raffan, J.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bürner, G. 1912. Oppian und sein Lehrgedicht vom Fischfang. Bamberg: Nagengast.Google Scholar
Bussemaker, U. C. 1849. Scholia in Theocritum, Nicandrum et Oppianum. Paris: Didot.Google Scholar
Buxton, R. 1992. ‘Iphigénie au bord de la mer’, Pallas 38: 209–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, R. 2004. ‘Similes and other likenesses’, in Fowler, R. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 139–55.Google Scholar
Byre, C. S. 1991. ‘The narrator’s addresses to the narratee in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica’, TAPA 121: 215–27.Google Scholar
Cairns, D. L. 1993. AIDŌS. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cairns, D. L. 2013. ‘The imagery of Erôs in Plato’s Phaedrus’, in Sanders, E., Thumiger, C., Carey, C., and Lowe, N. eds. Erôs in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 233–50.Google Scholar
Cairns, F. 1989. Virgil’s Augustan Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calame, C. 1997 [1977]. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece. Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Functions, trans. Collins, D. and Orion, J.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Calder, W. 1988. ‘Wilamowitz’ bimillenary essay on Vergil’, Vergilius 34: 112–27.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. 1995. Callimachus and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Campanile, E. 1986. ‘ἀνόστεος ὃν πόδα τένδει’, in Etter, A. ed. o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter: 355–62.Google Scholar
Campbell, M. 1981. A Commentary on Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica XII. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canevaro, L. G. 2015. Hesiod’s Works and Days: How to Teach Self-Sufficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cariou, M. 2016. ‘Eustathe de Thessalonique lecteur des Halieutiques’, RPh 90: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, T. F. 1967. ‘The “helops”: a case-study of the transmission of a piece of scientific knowledge by the scholarship of antiquity’, Phoenix 21: 202–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavavero, A. 2002. ‘The envied muse: Plato versus Homer’, in Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D. eds. Cultivating the Muse. Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 4767.Google Scholar
Cazzaniga, I. 1975. ‘Per Nicandro Colofonio la Titanomachia fu opera autentica di Esiodo?’, RIL 109: 173–80.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. 1984. ‘The Pope controversy: Romantic poetics and the English canon’, Critical Inquiry 10: 481509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots Vol. I: Α–Δ. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. 1974. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots Vol. III: Λ–Π. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Chesi, G. and Spiegel, F. 2019. Classical Literature and Posthumanism. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Clare, R. J. 2002. The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. 1999a. Between Geography and History. Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. 1999b. ‘Universal perspectives in historiography’, in Kraus, C. S. ed. The Limits of Historiography. Leiden: Brill: 249–79.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. 1995. ‘Between lions and men: images of the hero in the Iliad’, GRBS 36: 137–59.Google Scholar
Claus, D. B. 1977. ‘Defining moral terms in Works and Days’, TAPA 107: 7384.Google Scholar
Clausen, W. 2002. Virgil’s Aeneid: Decorum, Allusion and Ideology. Munich and Leipzig: Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauss, J. J. 2006. ‘Theriaca: Nicander’s Poem of the Earth’, SIFC 4: 160–82.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1992. ‘The world of Hesiod’, Ramus 21: 131–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, J. S. 1993. ‘The education of Perses: from “mega nepios” to “dion genos” and back’, in Schiesaro, , Mitsis, , and Clay, eds.: 23–33.Google Scholar
Clay, J. S. 1997 [1983]. The Wrath of Athena. Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Clay, J. S. 2003. Hesiod’s Cosmos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, B. 2004. A Penelopean Poetics. Reweaving the Feminine in Homer’s Odyssey. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
Coffey, M. 1957. ‘The function of the Homeric simile’, AJP 78: 113–32.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. 1975. ‘Innovation and variation: literary change and georgic poetry’, Neohelicon 3: 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, T. 1967. Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colonna, A. 1963. ‘Il commento di Giovanni Tzetzes agli ‘Halieutica’ di Oppiano’, in Lanx Satura. Nicolao Terzaghi oblata. Miscellanea philologica. Genova: Istituto di filologia classica e medievale: 101–4.Google Scholar
Colonna, A. 1964. ‘De Oppiani Vita antiquissima’, BollClass 12: 3340.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1992. ‘Proems in the middle’, in Dunn, F. M. and Cole, T. eds. Beginnings in Classical Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 147–60.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1994. Genres and Readers. Lucretius, Love Elegy, Pliny’s Encyclopedia. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Coo, L. M.-L. 2010. ‘The speech of Onetor (Ovid Met. 11.346–81) and its tragic model (Euripides I.T. 236–339)’, SIFC 8: 86106.Google Scholar
Corcoran, T. H. 1964. ‘Fish treatises in the early Roman empire’, CJ 59: 271–4.Google Scholar
Costanza, S. 1991. ‘Motivi callimachei nel proemio dei Cynegetica di Oppiano d’Apamea’, in Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, I. Letteratura greca. Palermo: Università di Palermo, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia: 479–89.Google Scholar
Couch, H. N. 1936. ‘Fishing in Homer’, CJ 31: 303–14.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. A. 1976. The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Cox, A. 1969. ‘Didactic poetry’, in Higginbotham, J. ed. Greek and Latin Literature: A Comparative Study. London: Methuen: 124–61.Google Scholar
Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croiset, M. 1899. ‘Période romaine’, in Croiset, A. and Croiset, M. eds. Histoire de la littérature grecque. Tome V. Paris: Fontemoing: 3151067.Google Scholar
Cropp, M. J. 2000. Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, N. B. 1979. ‘Water and wine as symbols of inspiration’, Mnemosyne 32: 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuypers, M. 2004. ‘Prince and principle: the philosophy of Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G.C. eds. Callimachus II. Hellenistica Groningana 6. Leuven: Peeters: 95116.Google Scholar
Dalzell, A. 1996. The Criticism of Didactic Poetry: Essays on Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Degani, E. 1995. ‘Problems in Greek gastronomic poetry. On Matro’s Attikon deipnon’, in Wilkins, J., Harvey, D., and Dobson, M. eds. Food in Antiquity. Exeter: University of Exeter Press: 413–28.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. 1971. Narrative in Drama. The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-Speech. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. 1987a. Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. Amsterdam: Grüner.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. 1987b. ‘The voice of anonymity: tis-speeches in the Iliad’, Eranos 85: 6984.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. 1991Narrative in Drama. The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-SpeechLeiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. 2001. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. 2008. Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics, and Literature. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delebecque, É. 1951Le cheval dans l’Iliade, suivi d’un lexique du cheval chez Homère et d’un essai sur le cheval préhomérique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Delorme, D. and Roux, C. 1987. Guide illustré de la faune aquatique dans l’art grec. Juan-les-Pins: APDCA.Google Scholar
De Puma, R. D. 1970. ‘The octopus-eel-lobster motif on Hellenistic and Roman fish mosaics’, AJA 74:191–2.Google Scholar
De Selincourt, E., ed. 1969. The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth: The Middle Years. Part I. 1806–1811. Revised by Moorman, Mary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. B. M. 1999. ‘Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial: consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals’, Philosophical Topics 27: 255–80.Google Scholar
Detienne, M., and Vernant, J.-P. 1989The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Diaper, W, and Jones, J. 1722. Oppian’s Halieuticks. Of the Nature of Fishes and Fishing of the Ancients. Oxford: Printed at the Theater.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. 2012. The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana. Volume 1: Colloquia Monacensia-Einsidlensia, Leidense-Stephani, and StephaniCambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. 2015. ‘Teaching Latin to Greek speakers in antiquity’, in Archibald, E. P., Brockliss, W. and Gnoza, J. eds. Learning Latin and Greek from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickie, M. W. 1976. ‘On the meaning of ἐφήμερος’, Illinois Classical Studies 1: 714.Google Scholar
Dickie, M. W. 1978. ‘Dike as a moral term in Homer and Hesiod’, CP 73: 91101.Google Scholar
Dierauer, U. 1977. Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike. Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie, und Ethik. Amsterdam: Grüner.Google Scholar
Doody, A. 2007. ‘Virgil the farmer? Critiques of the Georgics in Columella and Pliny’, CP 102: 180–97.Google Scholar
Doody, A. 2009. ‘Authority and authorship in the Medicina Plinii’, in Taub, L. and Doody, A. eds. Authorial Voices in Greco-Roman Technical Writing. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier: 93105.Google Scholar
Dougherty, C. 2001. The Raft of Odysseus. The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London and New York: Ark.Google Scholar
Duban, J. M. 1980. ‘Poets and kings in the Theogony invocation’, QUCC 4: 721.Google Scholar
Dubielzig, U. 1996. Triphiodor, Die Einnahme Ilions, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
DuBois, P. 1988. Sowing the Body. Psychoanalysis and Ancient Representations of Women. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dueck, D. 2000. Strabo of Amasia. A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duff, D. 2001. ‘Antididacticism as a contested principle in Romantic aesthetics’, Eighteenth-Century Life 25: 252–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, D. 2009. Romanticism and the Uses of Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, T. 1999. Plutarch’s Lives. Exploring Vice and Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durand, J.-L. 1989. ‘Ritual as instrumentality’, in Detienne, and Vernant, eds.: 119–28.Google Scholar
Durbec, Y. 2009. ‘Ajax et le naufrage de la flotte grecque: l’Alexandra de Lycophron, v.365-416’, La Parola del Passato 64 (365): 128–36.Google Scholar
Dyck, A. R. 1982. ‘Did Eustathius compose a commentary on Oppian’s Halieutica?’, CP 77: 153–4.Google Scholar
Edmonds, R. G. III 2013. Redefining Ancient Orphism. A Study in Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmunds, S. T. 1990. Homeric νήπιος. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. T. 1985Achilles in the Odyssey. Meisenheim: Hain.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. P. 1971. The Language of Hesiod in its Traditional Context. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. W. 1987. Homer. Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume V: Books 17–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwell, P. M. 2008. Between Rome and Persia. The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra under Roman Control. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Effe, B. 1974. ‘Zum Eingang von Nikanders Theriaka, Hermes 102: 119–21.Google Scholar
Effe, B. 1977. Dichtung und Lehre. Untersuchungen zur Typologie des antiken Lehrgedichts. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Effe, B. 2005. ‘Typologie und literarhistorischer Kontext: Zur Gattungsgeschichte des griechischen Lehrgedichts’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 27–44.Google Scholar
Else, G. F. 1957. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erffa, C. E. von 1937‘Aidos’ und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit. Mainz: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Erren, M. 1958. ‘ΑΣΤΕΡΕΣ ΑΝΩΝΥΜΟΙ (Zu Arat 367–385)’, Hermes 86: 240–3.Google Scholar
Erren, M. 1967. Die Phainomena des Aratos von Soloi. Untersuchungen zum Sach- und Sinnverständnis. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Erren, M. 1990. ‘Die Anredestruktur im archaischen Lehrgedicht’, in Kullmann, W. and Reichel, M. eds. Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen. Tübingen: Narr: 185–97.Google Scholar
Evelyn-White, H. G. 1936. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fabian, B. 1968. ‘Das Lehrgedicht als Problem der Poetik’, in Jauss, H. R. ed. Die nicht mehr schönen Künste. Grenzphänomene des Ästhetischen. Munich: Fink: 6789.Google Scholar
Fajen, F. 1969. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Halieutika des Oppian. Meisenheim: Hain.Google Scholar
Fajen, F. 1979. ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Halieutika des Oppian’, Hermes 107: 286310.Google Scholar
Fajen, F. 1995. Noten zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der Halieutika des Oppian. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Fajen, F. 1999. Oppianus Halieutica. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fakas, C. 2001a. ‘Arat und Aristoteles’ Kritik am Lehrgedicht’, Hermes 129: 479–83.Google Scholar
Fakas, C. 2001b. Der hellenistische Hesiod. Arats Phainomena und die Tradition der antiken Lehrepik. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. 1999. Ancient Greek Love Magic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. and Obbink, D. 2013. The Getty Hexameters: Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraggiana di Sarzana, C. 1987. ‘Le commentaire à Hésiode et la paideia encyclopédique de Proclus’, in Pépin, J. and Saffrey, H. D. eds. Proclus lecteur et interprète des anciens. Paris: Éditions du CNRS: 2141.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1991. Vergil’s Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic. The Art of Allusion in Literary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2003. ‘Classical genre in theory and practice’, New Literary History 34: 383408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden ComplexitiesNew York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Faust, M. 1970. ‘Die künstlerische Verwendung von κύων “Hund” in den homerischen Epen’, Glotta 48: 831.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 1992. ‘“Shall I compare thee …?” Catullus 68b and the limits of analogy’, in Woodman, T. and Powell, J. eds. Author and Audience in Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felson-Rubin, N. 1994. Regarding Penelope. From Character to Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, J. 2005. ‘“A great wave against the stream”: water imagery in Iliadic battle scenes’, AJP 126: 475504.Google Scholar
Finkelberg, M. 1987. ‘The first song of Demodocus’, Mnemosyne 40: 128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. A. 1996. ‘The myth of anthropomorphism’, in Bekoff, M. and Jamieson, D. eds. Readings in Animal Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 316.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. T. and White, L. M. 1983. The Tabula of Cebes. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Fleury, P. 2007. ‘Éroticos: un dialogue (amoureux) entre Platon et la seconde sophistique?’, REG 120: 776–87.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. 2007. ‘Antike Zeugnisse zu Kommunikationsformen von Tieren’, Antike und Abendland 53: 3975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fögen, T. 2014. ‘Animal communication’, in Campbell, G. ed. The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 216–32.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. and Thomas, E. eds. 2017. Interactions between Animals and Humans in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, H. 1978. ‘“Reverse similes” and sex roles in the Odyssey’, Arethusa 11: 726.Google Scholar
Ford, A. 1992, Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, A. 2002. The Origins of Criticism. Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W. W. 1987. Review of Janko 1984, CP 82: 156–64.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. 2000. ‘The didactic plot’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. eds. Matrices of Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 205–19.Google Scholar
Franco, C. 2014. Shameless. The Canine and the Feminine in Ancient Greece, trans. Fox, M.. Oakland: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus, Agamemnon. Vols I-III. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frisk, H. 1970. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Fusillo, M., Hurst, A., and Paduano, G. 1991. Licofrone, Alessandra. Milan: Guerini.Google Scholar
Gagarin, M. 1973. ‘Dikē in the Works and Days’, CP 68: 8194.Google Scholar
Gagarin, M. 1992. ‘The poetry of justice: Hesiod and the origins of Greek law’, Ramus 21: 6178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M. 1994. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gale, M. 2000. Virgil on the Nature of Things. The Georgics, Lucretius and the Didactic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M. ed. 2004. Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry. Genre, Tradition and Individuality. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.Google Scholar
Gale, M. 2005. ‘Avia Pieridum loca: tradition and innovation in Lucretius’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 175–91.Google Scholar
Galinsky, G. K. 1972. The Herakles Theme. The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Galinsky, G. K. 1981. ‘Some aspects of Ovid’s golden age’, GB 10: 193205.Google Scholar
García Valdés, M. 2003. ‘Ciencia y moral: Eliano desde Aristóteles y a la luz del estoicismo y la “zoofilia” moderna’, Emerita 71: 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Valdés, M., Llera Fueyo, L., and Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, L. eds. 2009. Aelianus, De natura animalium. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Garnett, R. 1895. ‘On the date of the Ἀποτελεσματικά of Manetho’, JPh 23: 238–40.Google Scholar
Garzetti, A. 1974. From Tiberius to the Antonines. A History of the Roman Empire ad 14–192, trans. Foster, J. R.. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gatz, B. 1967. Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Gee, E. 2000. Ovid, Aratus and Augustus. Astronomy in Ovid’s Fasti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method, trans. Lewin, J.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gentili, B. 1988. Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the Fifth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gera, D. L. 1995. ‘Lucian’s choice: Somnium 6–16’, in Innes, D., Hine, H., and Pelling, C. eds. Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 237–50.Google Scholar
Gerlaud, B. 1982. Triphiodore. La Prise D’Ilion. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Giangrande, G. 1970. ‘On the Halieutica of Oppian’, Eranos 68: 7694.Google Scholar
Giangrande, G. 2012. Review of García Valdés, Llera Fueyo, and Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén eds., Emerita 80: 191–5.Google Scholar
Gibbon, E. 1896. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gilhus, I. S. 2006. Animals, Gods and Humans. Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Glaisyer, N., and Pennell, S. eds. 2003. Didactic Literature in England 1500–1800. Expertise Constructed. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Glei, R. F. 1999. ‘Lehrgedicht’, in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. Cancik, H. and Schneider, H.. Stuttgart: Brill: 2632.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goethe, J. W. 1833. Goethes Werke Band IX. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Cotta’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 1988. ‘Reading differences: juxtaposition and the Odyssey’, Ramus 17: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet’s Voice. Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 1995. Foucault’s Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2006. ‘Artemis and cultural identity in Empire culture: how to think about polytheism, now?’, in Konstan, D. and Saïd, S. eds. Greeks and Greekness. Viewing the Greek Past under the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society: 112-61.Google Scholar
Gosse, E. 1910. ‘Didactic poetry’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Eleventh Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 202–4.Google Scholar
Gottschall, J. 2001. ‘Homer’s human animal: ritual combat in the Iliad, Philosophy and Literature 25: 278–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, J. B. 1974. ‘The Stoic conception of fate’, JHI 35: 1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. 1968. ‘On the Halieutica of Oppian’, CQ 18: 60–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. 1965. The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams. Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. and Scholfield, A. F. 1997 [1953]. Nicander. The Poems and Poetical Fragments. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Grant, R. 1949. ‘One hundred fifty-three large fish (John 21:11)’, The Harvard Theological Review 42: 273–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graver, M. R. 1995. ‘Dog-Helen and Homeric insult’, CA 14: 4161.Google Scholar
Graziosi, B. and Haubold, J. eds. 2010. Homer, Iliad VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, D. D. 1994. ‘Dionysius Periegetes and the Hellenistic Poetic and Geographical Traditions’, PhD Diss., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Green, P. 1997. ‘“These fragments have I shored against my ruins”: Apollonios Rhodios and the social revalidation of myth for a new age’, in Cartledge, P., Garnsey, P., and Gruen, E. eds. Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press: 3571.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. ‘Homeric words and speakers’, JHS 106: 3657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, M. 1983. ‘Personality in Hesiod’, ClAnt 2: 3765.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 2006. ‘Horsepower and donkeywork. Equids and the ancient Greek imagination’, CP 101: 185246, 307–58.Google Scholar
Groningen, B. A. van. 1958 La composition littéraire archaïque grecque. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.Google Scholar
Gruber, G. M. 2009. ‘Medium and Message in Lucretius’ “Honey” Analogy’, PhD Diss., University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Gullini, G. 1956. I mosaici di Palestrina. Rome: Archeologia Classica.Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. 1965. A History of Greek Philosophy, Volume II: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. 1991. Theocritus’ Pastoral Analogies: The Formation of a Genre. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. 1992. ‘The Nautilus, the Halcyon, and Selenaia: Callimachus’ “Epigram” 5 Pf. = 14 G.-P.’, CA 11: 194209.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. 2010. ‘Literary criticism’, in Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. eds. A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell: 337–65.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, D. 1964. Zur Ideenlehre des Hermogenes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainsworth, J. B. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: Books 9–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. M. 1987. ‘The geography of Euripides’ Iphigeneia among the Taurians’, AJP 108: 427–33.Google Scholar
Hall, E. M. 1995. ‘The ass with double vision: politicising an ancient Greek novel’, in Margolies, D. and Joannou, M. eds. Heart of a Heartless World: Essays in Cultural Resistance in Honour of Margot Heinemann. London and Boulder: Pluto Press: 4759.Google Scholar
Hall, E. M. 2013. Adventures with Iphigenia in Tauris. A Cultural History of Euripides’ Black Sea Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 1986. Aristotle’s Poetics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2011. Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halperin, D. M. 1983. Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblenne, P. 1968. ‘La légende d’Oppien’, AC 37: 589619.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Science. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harland, P. A. 2003. ‘Imperial cults within local cultural life: associations in Roman Asia’, Ancient History Bulletin 17: 85107.Google Scholar
Haskell, Y. 1999. ‘Work or play? Latin “recreational” georgic poetry of the Italian Renaissance’, Humanistica Lovaniensia: Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 48: 132–59.Google Scholar
Haskell, Y. 2003. Loyola’s Bees. Ideology and Industry in Jesuit Latin Didactic Poetry. Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, Y. and Hardie, P. eds. 1999. Poets and Teachers: Latin Didactic Poetry and the Didactic Authority of the Latin Poet from the Renaissance to the Present. Bari: Levante Editori.Google Scholar
Haskins, C. E. 1891. ‘On Homeric fishing-tackle’, Journal of Philology 19: 238–40.Google Scholar
Hathaway, B. 1962. The Age of Criticism: The Late Renaissance in Italy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haubold, J. H. 2010. ‘Shepherd, farmer, poet, sophist: Hesiod on his own reception’, in Boys-Stones, G. R. and Haubold, J. H. eds. Plato and Hesiod. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1130.Google Scholar
Haubold, J. H. 2014. ‘Ethnography in the Iliad, in Skempis, M. and Ziogas, I. eds. Geography, Topography, Landscape. Configurations of Space in Greek and Roman Epic. Berlin: De Gruyter: 1936.Google Scholar
Havelock, E. A. 1978. The Greek Concept of Justice. From its Shadow in Homer to its Substance in Plato. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
HawesG. 2014. Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, T. 2017. ‘Eloquent alogia: animal narrators in ancient Greek literature’, Humanities 6: 3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haye, T. 1997. Das lateinische Lehrgedicht im Mittelalter. Analyse einer Gattung. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1992. ‘The legacy of Peleus: death and divine gifts in the Iliad’, Hermes 120: 387400.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2001. ‘Telemachus ΠΕΠΝΥΜΕΝΟΣ: growing into an epithet’, Mnemosyne 54: 129–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. 2005. The Talking Greeks. Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, M. 1985. ‘Hesiod’s didactic poetry’, CQ 35: 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, M. 1989. Unity in Greek Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, M. 2000. ‘Do heroes eat fish? Athenaeus on the Homeric lifestyle’, in Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. eds. Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter: University of Exeter Press: 342–52.Google Scholar
Heath, M. 2004. Menander. A Rhetor in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, J. 2015. Sea Snails. A Natural History. Cham, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hercher, R. 1864Claudii Aeliani De natura animalium libri XVIILeipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Heubeck, A. and Hoekstra, A. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey: Books IX–XVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heubeck, A., West, S., and Hainsworth, J. B. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey: Books I–VIII. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Higham, T. F. 1957. ‘Nature note: autophagy in octopods. Hesiod vindicated’, CR 7: 1617.Google Scholar
Hindermann, J. 2013. ‘Eros und Wissensvermittlung im Garten’, Gymnasium 120: 343–60.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 2000. ‘Essential epic: genre and gender from Macer to Statius’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. eds. Matrices of Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 221–44.Google Scholar
Hofinger, M. 1981. Études sur le vocabulaire du grec archaïque. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, T. P. 1995. ‘“Rest in violence”: composition and characterization in Iliad 16.155–277’, CA 14: 289316.Google Scholar
Hollis, A. S. 1990. Callimachus Hecale. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, N. 1988. A Hellenistic Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, N. 1994. Greek Poetry of the Imperial Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopman, M. G. 2012. Scylla. Myth, Metaphor, Paradox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornblower, S. 2015. Lykophron: Alexandra. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornblower, S. 2018. Lykophron’s Alexandra, Rome, and the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, N. 2008. Virgil, Aeneid 2. A Commentary. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horster, M. and Reitz, C. eds. 2005. Wissensvermittlung in dichterischer Gestalt. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Hübner, W. 1984a. ‘Der Mensch in Aelians Tiergeschichten’, Antike und Abendland 30: 154–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, W. 1984b. ‘Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter’, ANRW II.32.1: 126320.Google Scholar
Hübner, W. 2005. ‘Die Rezeption der Phainomena Arats in der lateinischen Literatur’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 133–52.Google Scholar
Hübner, W. 2010. Manilius, Astronomica Buch V. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 1983. A Study of Daphnis and Chloe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 1993. The Argonautica of Apollonius. Literary Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 1995. ‘Written in the stars: poetry and philosophy in the Phaenomena of Aratus’, Arachnion 2: 134.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2004a. ‘The Argonautica of Apollonius and epic tradition’, in Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. eds. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 89132.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2004b. ‘Epic in a minor key’, in Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. eds. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 191245.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2004c. ‘The Periegesis of Dionysius and the traditions of Hellenistic poetry’, REA 106: 217–31.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2006a. ‘The Prologue of the Periodos to Nicomedes (“Pseudo-Scymnus”)’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, G. C. eds. Beyond The Canon. Hellenistica Groningana 11. Leuven: Peeters: 123–40.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2006b. The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2009a. ‘Hesiod’s style: towards an ancient analysis’, in Montanari, F., Rengakos, A., and Tsagalis, C. eds. Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden: Brill: 253–69.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2009b. Critical Moments in Classical Literature. Studies in the Ancient View of Literature and its Uses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2011. ‘Plato’s Ion and the origins of scholarship’, in Matthaios, S., Montanari, F., and Rengakos, A. eds. Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter: 2740.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2012a. Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature. The Silent Stream. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2012b. ‘The songs of Demodocus: compression and extension in Greek narrative poetry’, in Baumbach, and Bär, eds.: 83–109.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2014. Hesiodic Voices. Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2015. Apollonius of Rhodes. Argonautica IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2018. The Measure of Homer. The Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. and Russell, D. 2011. Plutarch ‘How to Study Poetry’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 1988. Hellenistic Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2009. ‘Read the instructions: didactic poetry and didactic prose’, CQ 59: 196211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias Zoido, J. C. 1999. ‘El tratamiento del tema de las “edades del mundo” en el libro II de las Haliéuticas de Opiano de Cilicia’, Emerita 67: 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias Zoido, J. C. 2002a. ‘Estructura y elementos estructuradores en las Haliéuticas de Opiano de Cilicia’, Anuario de estudios filológicos 25: 205–20.Google Scholar
Iglesias Zoido, J. C. 2002b. ‘Opiano y Virgilio: La influencia de las Geórgicas sobre la estructura de las Haliéuticas, Emerita 70: 283304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias Zoido, J. C. 2005. ‘Las Haliéuticas de Opiano como instrucción: el problema del contenido en la poesía didáctica grecolatina de época imperial’, Euphrosyne 33: 403–19.Google Scholar
Ingalls, W. B. 1998. ‘Attitudes towards children in the Iliad’, EDMC (CV) 42 (n.s. 17): 1334.Google Scholar
Ingram, R. 2003. ‘Seventeenth-century didactic readers, their literature, and ours’, in Glaisyer, and Pennell, eds.: 63–78.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. 1997. ‘Callimachus, Istrus and two mortals’ deaths’, QUCC 56: 105–18.Google Scholar
Jacques, J.-M. 2002. Nicandre, Œuvres. Tome II: Les Thériaques. Fragments iologiques antérieurs à Nicandre. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Jacques, J.-M. 2007. Nicandre, Œuvres. Tome III: Les Alexipharmaques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Jacob, C. 1981. ‘L’œil et la mémoire: sur la Périégèse de la terre habitée de Denys’, in Jacob, C. and Lestringant, F. eds., Arts et Légendes d’Espaces: Figures du Voyage et Rhétoriques du Monde. Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure: 2197.Google Scholar
Jacob, C. 1990. La description de la terre habitée de Denys d’Alexandrie ou la leçon de géographie. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Jacob, C. 1991. ‘Θεὸς Ἑρμῆς ἐπὶ Ἁδριανοῦ: La mise en scène du pouvoir impérial dans la Description de la terre habitée de Denys d’Alexandrie’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 2: 4353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, F. 1832. Aeliani De natura animalium libri XVII. Jena: Frommann.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1902. Apollodors Chronik. Eine Sammlung der Fragmente. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Jäger, H.-W. 1970. ‘Zur Poetik der Lehrdichtung in Deutschland. In kritischen Zusätzen zu L. L. Albertsens Buch Das Lehrgedicht, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 44: 544–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. W. 1966. ‘The honey on the cup in Oppian and others’, PCPhS 12: 2436.Google Scholar
James, A. W. 1969. ‘Some examples of imitation in the similes of later Greek epic’, Antichthon 3: 7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. W. 1970. Studies in the Language of Oppian of Cilicia. An Analysis of the New Formations in the Halieutica. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
James, A. W. 2004. Quintus of Smyrna: The Trojan Epic. Posthomerica. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
James, A. W. and Lee, K. 2000. A Commentary on Quintus of Smyrna Posthomerica V. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janko, R. 1984. Aristotle On Comedy. Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics II. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Janko, R. 1987. Aristotle, Poetics I, with the Tractatus Coislinianus, Reconstruction of Poetics II, and the Fragments of the On Poets. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Janko, R. 1994. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janko, R. 2011. Philodemus ‘On Poems’ Books 3–4, with the fragments of Aristotle, ‘On Poets’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeanneret, M. 1991. A Feast of Words: Banquets and Table Talk in the Renaissance, trans. Whitely, J. and Hughes, E.. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkyns, R. 1997. ‘Response to R. Cockcroft, ‘The didactic poetry of Erasmus Darwin’, in Atherton, C. ed. Form and Content in Didactic Poetry. Bari: Levante Editori: 161–9.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. 1923. Philodemus Über die Gedichte, fünftes Buch. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. 1936. ‘Herakleides von Pontos bei Philodem und Horaz’, SPAW: 292–320.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. M. 2000. Understanding Early Christian Art. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnston, P. A. 1980. Vergil’s Agricultural Golden Age. A Study of the Georgics. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jope, J. 2011. ‘Interpretation and authenticity of the Lucianic Erotes’, Helios 38: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouanna, J. 1983. ‘Le paysan, la jeune fille et le sans-os (Hésiode, Travaux, vv. 493, 501, 523–524)’, in Mélanges Édouard Delebecque. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence: 201–12.Google Scholar
Kádár, Z. 1966. ‘Julia Domna comme Assyrié Kythereia et Sélené’, Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 2 : 101–8.Google Scholar
Kaibel, G. 1887. ‘Zu Athenaeus’, Hermes 22: 323–35.Google Scholar
Kaibel, G. 1894. ‘Aratea’, Hermes 29: 82123.Google Scholar
Käßer, C. 2005. ‘The poet and the “polis”. The Aetia as didactic poem’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 95–114.Google Scholar
Kambylis, A. 1965. Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik. Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Keaney, J. J. and Lamberton, R. eds. 1996. [Plutarch] Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer. Atlanta: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Keeley, B. L. 2004. ‘Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: understanding cross-species comparisons’, Biology and Philosophy 19: 521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, R. 1985. ‘Lucretius and his reader’, Apeiron 19: 110.Google Scholar
Keller, O. 1913. Die Antike Tierwelt Vol. II. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. F. 1999. ‘“Cf.”: analogies, relationships and Catullus 68’, in Braund, S. M. and Mayer, R. eds. Amor: Roma – Love and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society: 3043.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. F. 2011. ‘Sums in verse or a mathematical aesthetic?’, in Green, S. J. and Volk, K. eds. Forgotten Stars. Rediscovering Manilius’ Astronomica. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 165–87.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1970. ‘Doctus Lucretius’, Mnemosyne 23: 366–92.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1979. ‘The typology of didactic’, CR 29: 71–3.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 2003. Review of Volk 2002, BMCR 2003.01.26.Google Scholar
Keydell, R. 1937. ‘Oppians Gedicht von der Fischerei und Aelians Tiergeschichte’, Hermes 72: 411–34.Google Scholar
Keydell, R. 1939. ‘Oppianos (1)’, RE XVIII.1: 698703.Google Scholar
Khan, Y. 2004. ‘Denys lecteur des Phénomènes d’Aratos’, REA 106: 233–46.Google Scholar
Kidd, D. 1997. Aratus, Phaenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 2007. ‘The portrait of Homer in Strabo’s Geography, CP 102: 363–88.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 2012. Homer Between History and Fiction in Imperial Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kindstrand, J. F. 1976. ‘Homer in den Tiergeschichten des Ailianos’, Hermes 104: 3553.Google Scholar
Kindstrand, J. F. 1998. ‘Claudius Aelianus und sein Werk’, ANRW II.34.4: 2954–96.Google Scholar
Kindt, J. 2006. ‘Delphic oracle stories and the beginning of historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos’, CP 101: 3451.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. T. 1992. ‘Rhetoric and poetics in Hesiod’, Ramus 21: 3460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, G. S. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume II: Books 5–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S., Raven, M., and Schofield, M. eds. 1983. The Presocratic Philosophers. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, W. 1982. ‘Probleme der Gattungsentwicklung am Beispiel des Epos’, Philologus 126: 265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. 1981. ‘Zur Datierung der Romrede des Aelius Aristides’, Historia 30: 337–50.Google Scholar
Klotz, F. 2006. ‘The Self-Presentation of Philosophers, Sophists and Poets in Literature of the Second Sophistic’, PhD Diss., University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Knaack, G. 1903. ‘Dionysios’, RE V.1: 915–24.Google Scholar
Kneebone, E. 2007. ‘Fish in battle? Quintus of Smyrna and the Halieutica of Oppian’, in Baumbach, M. and Bär, S. eds. Quintus Smyrnaeus: Transforming Homer in Second Sophistic Epic’. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kneebone, E. 2017. ‘The limits of enquiry in imperial Greek didactic poetry’, in König, J. and Woolf, G. eds Authority and Expertise in Ancient Scientific Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 203–30.Google Scholar
Knight, V. H. 1995. The Renewal of Epic. Responses to Homer in the Argonautica of Apollonius. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, P. E. 1985. ‘Wine, water, and Callimachean polemics’, HSCP 89: 107–19.Google Scholar
Knudsen, R. A. 2014. Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kolde, A. 2006. ‘La tragédie des dauphins (Oppien, Halieutiques 5, 416–588)’, in Cusset, C. ed. Musa docta. Recherches sur la poésie scientifique dans l’Antiquité. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne: 215–42.Google Scholar
König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. 2007. Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koning, H. H. 2010. Hesiod: The Other Poet. Ancient Reception of a Cultural Icon. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. 1993. ‘Foreword: to the reader’, in Schiesaro, , Mitsis, , and Clay, eds.: 11–22.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2010–2011. ‘A pig convicts itself of unreason: the implicit argument of Plutarch’s Gryllus’, Hypoboreus 16–17: 371–85.Google Scholar
Korhonen, T. 2012. ‘On human–animal relationships in Aelian’s Natura Animalium’, Arctos 46: 6577.Google Scholar
Korenjak, M. 2003. Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen Autors (‘pseudo-Skymnos’). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Koster, S. 1970. Antike Epostheorien. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Kowalzig, B. 2013. ‘Transcultural chorality: Iphigenia in Tauris and Athenian imperial economics in a polytheistic world’, in Gagné, R. and Hopman, M. G. eds. Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 178210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, W. 1925. ‘Lehrgedicht’, RE XII.2: 1842–57.Google Scholar
Kromer, G. 1979. ‘The didactic tradition in Vergil’s Georgics’, Ramus 8: 721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschwitz, P., and Schumacher, M. 2005. Das vorklassische Lehrgedicht der Römer. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kunisch, N. 1989. Griechische Fischteller: Natur und Bild. Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar
Kyriakou, P. 1995. Homeric hapax legomena in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Kyriakou, P. 2006. A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacroix, M. 1937. ‘Ἤπιος, νήπιος’, in Mélanges offerts à A. M. Desrousseaux par ses amis et ses élèves. Paris: Hachette: 261–72.Google Scholar
La Penna, A. 2004. ‘La disputa sul primato della caccia o della pesca nell’antichità: a proposito degli Halieutica pseudo-ovidiani’, Philologus 148: 290304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. 2004. ‘Politian’s Ambra and reading epic didactically’, in Gale, M. ed. Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry. Genre, Tradition and Individuality. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales: 2747.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberton, R. 1986. Homer The Theologian. Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lamberton, R., and Keaney, J. J. eds. 1992. Homer’s Ancient Readers. The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Landolfi, L. 1996. Il Volo di Dike (da Arato a Giovenale). Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Lange, K. 2002. Euripides und Homer. Untersuchungen zur Homernachwirkung in Elektra, Iphigenie im Taurerland, Helena, Orestes und Kyklops. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Laplace, M. 2007. Le roman d’Achille Tatios: ‘Discours panégyrique’ et imaginaire romanesque, Bern and Oxford: Lang.Google Scholar
Latacz, J. 1975. Review of James 1970, Gnomon 47: 442–9.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H. 1998 [1960]. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Study, trans. Bliss, M. T., Jansen, A., and Leiden, D. E.: Brill.Google Scholar
Lausberg, M. 1990. ‘Epos und Lehrgedicht. Ein Gattungsvergleich am Beispiel von Lucans Schlangenkatalog’, WJA 16: 173203.Google Scholar
Leaf, W. 1960 [1886]. The Iliad Vol. II. Books XIII–XXIV. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Lebeck, A. 1971. The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leedy, P. F. 1946. ‘Genres criticism and the significance of Warton’s essay on Pope’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 45: 140–6.Google Scholar
Lefèvre-Novaro, D. 2010. ‘Les sacrifices de poissons dans les sanctuaires grecs de l’Âge du Fer’, Kernos 23: 3752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoux, D. 2011. ‘Myth and explanation in Manilius’, in Green, S. J. and Volk, K. eds. Forgotten Stars. Rediscovering Manilius’ Astronomica. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 4456.Google Scholar
Lehrs, F. S. 1846. ‘Nicander, Oppianus, Marcellus Sideta de piscibus, Poeta de herbis’, in Lehrs, F. S. and Dübner, F. eds. Poetae bucolici et didactici. Paris: Didot.Google Scholar
Lenaghan, L. 1967. ‘Lucretius 1.921–50’, TAPA 98: 221–51.Google Scholar
Lennox, J. G. 1999. ‘Aristotle on the biological roots of virtue: the natural history of natural virtue’, in Maienschein, J. and Ruse, M. eds. Biology and the Foundation of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesky, A. 1957–1958. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Berlin: Francke.Google Scholar
Leunissen, M. 2012. ‘Aristotle on natural character and its implications for moral development’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 50: 507–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeVen, P. A. 2014. The Many-Headed Muse. Tradition and Innovation in Late Classical Greek Lyric Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leverenz, L. M. 1991. ‘The Scholia on Oppian’s Halieutica from the Z Family of Manuscripts’. PhD Diss., University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Lelièvre, F. 1954. ‘The basis of ancient parody’, G&R 1: 6681.Google Scholar
Levianouk, O. 2008. ‘Lament and Hymenaios in Erinna’s Distaff’, in Suter, A. ed. Lament: Studies in the Mediterranean and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 200–32.Google Scholar
Lewis, A.-M. 1996. ‘The popularity of the Phaenomena of Aratus: a reevaluation’, in Deroux, C. ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VI. Brussels: 94118.Google Scholar
Lhermitte, J.-F. 2015. ‘L’animal vertueux dans la philosophie antique à l’époque impériale. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
Li Causi, P. 2009–2010. ‘Strange animals: extremely interspecific hybridization (and anthropopoiesis) in Plutarch’, Ploutarchos n.s. 7: 4760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, J. L. 2008. ‘Catalogue technique in Dionysius Periegetes’, in Carvounis, and Hunter, eds.: 11–31.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, J. L. 2014. Dionysius Periegetes. Description of the Known World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lilja, S. 1974. ‘Theriophily in Homer’, Arctos 8: 71–8.Google Scholar
Lilly, M. L. 1919. The Georgic: A Contribution to the Study of the Vergilian Type of Didactic Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lindberg, G. 1977. Studies in Hermogenes and Eustathios. The Theory of Ideas and its Application in the Commentaries of Eustathios on the Epics of Homer. Lund: Lindell.Google Scholar
Lintott, A. 1981. ‘What was the “imperium romanum”?’, G&R 28: 5367.Google Scholar
Livrea, E. 1973Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon liber IVFlorence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1969. ‘Agamemnonea’, HSCP 73: 97104.Google Scholar
Lohmeyer, T. 1866. De vocabulis in Oppiani Halieuticis aut peculiariter usurpatis aut primum exstantibus. Berlin: Kessinger.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, S. H. 1990. Creatures of Speech. Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Stuttgart: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O., and Boas, G. 1973. Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. New York: Octagon.Google Scholar
Lowrie, M. 1995. Review of Schiesaro, Mitsis, and Clay eds. 1993. BMCR 95.06.13.Google Scholar
Ludwig, W. 1963. ‘Die Phainomena Arats als hellenistische Dichtung’, Hermes 91: 425–48.Google Scholar
Ludwig, W. 1989. ‘Neulateinische Lehrgedichte und Vergils Georgica’, in Ludwig, W. ed. Litterae Neolatinae. Schriften zur neulateinischen Literatur. Munich: Fink: 100–27.Google Scholar
Luschnat, O. 1961. ‘Autodidaktos. Eine Begriffsgeschichte’, Theologia Viatorum 8: 157172.Google Scholar
Lytle, E. 2011. ‘The strange love of the fish and the goat: regional contexts and Rough Cilician religion in Oppian’s Halieutica 4.308–73’, TAPA 141: 333–86.Google Scholar
Maass, E. 1892. Aratea. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
MacDonald, A. A. 2007. ‘Introduction’, in Harder, , MacDonald, , and Reinink, eds: vii–x.Google Scholar
Maciver, C. A. 2012. Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica. Engaging Homer in Late Antiquity. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maciver, C. A. 2016. ‘Nonnus and imperial Greek poetry’, in Accorinti, D. ed. Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis. Leiden: Brill: 529–48.Google Scholar
MacPhail, J. A. 2011. Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maehler, H. 1963Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Magnelli, E. 2005. ‘Esiodo “epico” ed Esiodo didattico: il doppio epilogo di Dionisio Periegeta’, ARF 7: 105–8.Google Scholar
Magnelli, E. 2006a. ‘Nicander’s chronology: a literary approach’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, G. C. eds. Beyond The Canon. Hellenistica Groningana 11. Leuven: Peeters: 185204.Google Scholar
Magnelli, E. 2006b. ‘Altre fonti e imitazioni del poema di Dionisio Periegeta’, SIFC 4: 241–51.Google Scholar
Magnelli, E. 2010. ‘Nicander’, in Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. eds. A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Malden: Blackwell: 211–23.Google Scholar
Mair, A. W. 1928. Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mangoni, C. 1993. Filodemo: Il quinto libro della Poetica. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Marcotte, D. 2000. Géographes grecs. Tome I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Marg, W. 1956. ‘Das erste Lied des Demodokos’, in Navicula Chiloniensis. Studia philologica Felici Jacoby … oblata: 1629. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Martin, A. and Primavesi, O. 1999. L’Empédocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–1666). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 1956. Arati Phaenomena. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 1956. Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d’Aratos. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 1998. Aratos. Phénomènes. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Martin, R. P. 1992. ‘Hesiod’s metanastic poetics’, Ramus 21: 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. P. 2004. ‘Hesiod and the didactic double’, Synthesis 11: 3153.Google Scholar
Martin, T.-H. 1863. Études sur la vie et les oeuvres d’Oppien de Cilicie. Paris: Dupont.Google Scholar
Marzano, A. 2013. Harvesting the Sea. The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzillo, P. 2010. Der Kommentar des Proklos zu Hesiods Werken und Tagen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mason, H. J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. A Lexicon and Analysis. Toronto: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Massimilla, G. 2016. ‘The ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction of prepositions as a feature of the epigrammatic style’, in Sistakou, E. and Rengakos, A. eds. Dialect, Diction, and Style in Greek Literary and Inscribed Epigram. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter: 173–91.Google Scholar
Mastrorosa, I. G. 2000. ‘Storie di delfini sulle coste africane. Mirabilia o conoscenze zoologiche?L’Africa Romana 13: 1853–80.Google Scholar
Mayhew, R. 2015. ‘Aristotle’s biology and his lost Homeric Puzzles’, CQ 65: 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, R. 2019. Aristotle’s Lost Homeric Problems: Textual Studies. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazal, O. 1967. ‘Eine neue Rezension der Biographie Oppians’, WS 80: 115–24.Google Scholar
McCall, M. H. 1969. Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, K. J. 1963. ‘Ambivalent ΑΙΔΩΣ in Hesiod’, AJP 84: 1727, 303.Google Scholar
McNelis, C. and Sens, A. 2016. The Alexandra of Lycophron. A Literary Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkelbach, R. and West, M. L. 1967. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Meyboom, P. G. P. 1977. ‘I mosaici pompeiani con figure di pesci’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 39: 4993.Google Scholar
Meyboom, P. G. P. 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Mierow, H. E. 1929. ‘Hesiod’s polyp’, AJP 50: 76–8.Google Scholar
Mignogna, E. 1995. ‘Roman und “Paradoxon”: Die Metamorphosen der Metapher in Achilleus Tatios’ Leukippe und Kleitophon.’ Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 6: 2137.Google Scholar
Miguélez Cavero, L. 2008. Greek Poems in Context. Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200–600 ad. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miguélez Cavero, L. 2010. ‘Rhetorical displays of knowledge in Leucippe and Clitophon: animal talk’, Prometheus 36: 263–83.Google Scholar
Miguélez Cavero, L. 2013. Triphiodorus, The Sack of Troy. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, F. 2004. Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol. 2: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. 1986. ‘Disclaiming divine inspiration: a programmatic pattern’, WS 20: 151–64.Google Scholar
Millerd, C. E. 1908. On The Interpretation of Empedocles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. 2000. ‘Achilles, Patroclus and parental care in some Homeric similes’, G&R 47: 318.Google Scholar
MinchinE. 2001. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 1993. ‘Committing philosophy on the reader: didactic coercion and reader autonomy in De Rerum Natura’, in Schiesaro, , Mitsis, , and Clay, eds.: 111–28.Google Scholar
Mócsy, A. 1974. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Moles, J. 1990. ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, PLLS 6: 297375.Google Scholar
Moles, J. 2000. ‘The Dionian Charidemus’, in Swain, S. ed. Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters, and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 187210.Google Scholar
Mommsen, T. 1886. The Provinces of the Roman Empire. From Caesar to Diocletian, trans. Dickson, W. P.. London: Bentley.Google Scholar
MontiglioS. 2011. From Villain to Hero: Odysseus in Ancient Thought. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, H. L. 1995. ‘The taming of the view: natural curiosities in Leukippe and Kleitophon’, Groningen Colloquia on the Novel 6: 3950.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. R. 1993. ‘Make-believe and make believe: the fictionality of the Greek novels’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. eds. Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: University of Exeter Press: 175229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. R. 2004. Longus: Daphnis and Chloe. Oxford: Aris & Phillips.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossop, D. J. 1971. Pure Poetry. Studies in French Poetic Theory and Practice 1746 to 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 1993. ‘Hesiod and the textualization of personal temporality’, in Arrighetti, G. and Montanari, F. eds. La componente autobiografica nella poesia greca e latina fra realtà e artificio letterario. Pisa: Giardini: 7392.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 1997. ‘Hesiod’s myth of the five (or three or four) races’, PCPhS 43: 104–27.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 1999. ‘The poetics of early Greek philosophy’, in Long, A. A. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 332–62.Google Scholar
Moulton, C. 1977. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Munno, G. 1917. ‘Note su le biografie oppianee’, Boll. Filol. Class. 23: 7782.Google Scholar
Munno, G. 1921. ‘Alcuni caratteri della lingua di Oppiano’, RIGI 3: 6876.Google Scholar
Munno, G. 1922. ‘La ‘Pesca’ di Oppiano. Analisi ed appunti’, RFIC 50: 307–34.Google Scholar
Murgatroyd, P. 1984. ‘Amatory hunting, fishing and fowling’, Latomus 43: 362–8.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. 2004. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, P. 2004. ‘The Muses and their arts’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. eds. Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 365–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylona, D. 2008. Fish-Eating in Greece from the Fifth Century bc to the Seventh Century ad: A Story of Impoverished Fishermen or Luxurious Fish Banquets? Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagler, M. N. 1990. ‘Odysseus: the proem and the problem’, CA 9: 335–56.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1985. ‘Theognis and Megara. A poet’s vision of his city’, in Figueira, T. J. and Nagy, G. eds. Theognis of Megara. Poetry and the Polis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 2281.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1992. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NanniniS. 2003. Analogia e polarità in similitudine. Paragoni iliadici e odissiaci a confronto. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Napolitano, F. 1973. ‘Esegesi bizantina degli Halieutica di Oppiano’, Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti 48: 237–54.Google Scholar
Neal, T. 2006. ‘Blood and hunger in the Iliad’, CP 101: 1533.Google Scholar
NeerR. T. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530–460 bce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, S. 1996. ‘The drama of Hesiod’s farm’, CP 91: 4553.Google Scholar
Nelson, S. 1998. God and the Land. The Metaphysics of Farming in Hesiod and Vergil. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
NeriC. 2003. Erinna. Testimonianze e frammentiBologna: Pàtron Editore.Google Scholar
Nesselrath, H.-G. 1985. Lukians Parasitendialog. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, O., and van Hoesen, H. B.. 1959. Greek Horoscopes. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Newman, J. H. 1873. ‘Poetry, with reference to Aristotle’s Poetics’, in Essays: Critical and Historical, Vol. I. London: Pickering: 129.Google Scholar
Newmyer, S. T. 1999. ‘Speaking of beasts: the Stoics and Plutarch on animal reason and the modern case against animals’, QUCC 63: 99110.Google Scholar
Newmyer, S. T. 2006. Animals, Rights and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmyer, S. T. 2017. ‘Human–animal interactions in Plutarch as commentary on human moral failings’, in Fögen, and Thomas, eds.: 233–52.Google Scholar
Nicolay, E. 2001. ‘Homère et l’âme des bêtes’, in Niewöhner, F. and Sebon, J.-L. eds. Die Seele der Tiere, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 51–8.Google Scholar
Nicolet, C. 1991. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní Mheallaigh, K. 2014a. Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks and Hyperreality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní Mheallaigh, K. 2014b. ‘Reading the fraudulent text: Thessalus of Tralles and the book of Nechepso’, in Martínez, J. ed. Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature. Leiden: Brill: 179–86.Google Scholar
Nimis, S. A. 1987. Narrative Semiotics in the Epic Tradition: The Simile. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Nishimura-Jensen, J. 2000. ‘Unstable geographies: the moving landscape in Apollonius’ Argonautica and Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos’, TAPA 130: 287317.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomington and Indianapolis 2009. The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nutton, V. 1985. ‘Murders and miracles: lay attitudes towards medicine in classical antiquity’, in Porter, R. ed. Patients and Practitioners. Lay Perceptions of Medicine in Pre-Industrial Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2353.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. 1993. ‘The addressees of Empedocles’, in Schiesaro, , Mitsis, , and Clay, eds.: 51–98.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. 2003. ‘Prose on star-signs quoting Homer, Hesiod, and others’, in Gonis, N., Obbink, D., and Parsons, P. J. eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Vol. LXVIII. London: British Academy: 5263.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 1969. Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oliva, P. 1962. Pannonia and the Onset of Crisis in the Roman Empire, trans. Urwin, I.. Prague: Československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
Olson, S. D. 1989. ‘Odyssey 8: Guile, force and the subversive poetics of desire’, Arethusa 22: 135–45.Google Scholar
Olson, S. D. 1995. Blood and Iron. Stories and Storytelling in Homer’s Odyssey. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, S. D., and Sens, A. 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century bce. Atlanta: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Olson, S. D., and Sens, A. 2000. Archestratos of Gela. Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Opelt, I. 1960. ‘Zum Kaiserkult in der griechischen Dichtung’, RhM 103: 4356.Google Scholar
Østerud, S. 1976. ‘The individuality of Hesiod’, Hermes 104: 1329.Google Scholar
Overduin, F. 2014. ‘The anti-bucolic world of Nicander’s Theriaca’, CQ 64: 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overduin, F. 2015. Nicander of Colophon’s Theriaca. A Literary Commentary. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overduin, F. 2018. ‘The didactic aesthetics of Marcellus’ De piscibus (GDRK 63)’, AJP 139: 3157.Google Scholar
Pachoumi, E. 2017. The Concepts of the Divine in the Greek Magical Papyri. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D. L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams Before ad 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, Not Included in ‘Hellenistic Epigrams’ or ‘The Garland of Philip’. Revised and Prepared for Publication by R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parente, M. I. 1987. ‘Una poetica di incerto autore in Filodemo’, in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte. Vol. 5. Urbino: Università degli studi di Urbino: 8198.Google Scholar
Paschalis, M. 2000. ‘Generic affiliations in Roman and Greek Cynegetica’, in Κτερίσματα: φιλολογικά μελετήματα αφιερωμένα στον Ιω. Καμπίτση (1938–1990), Herakleion: Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης: 201–32.Google Scholar
Paschalis, M. 2005. ‘Pandora and the wooden horse: a reading of Triphiodorus’ Ἅλωσις Ἰλίου’, in id. ed. Roman and Greek Imperial Epic. Herakleion: Crete University Press: 91115.Google Scholar
Patey, D. L. 1988. ‘The eighteenth century invents the canon’, Modern Language Studies 18: 1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patillon, M. 2002. Hermogène. L’art rhétorique. Paris: L’Âge d’Homme.Google Scholar
Payne, M. 2010. The Animal Part. Human and Other Animals in the Poetic Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, L. 1975. ‘Myth and archaeologia in Italy and Sicily: Timaeus and his predecessors’, YCS 24: 171–95.Google Scholar
Pédech, P. 1964. La méthode historique de Polybe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Peek, W. 1979. ‘Zu den Gedichten des Marcellus von Side auf Regilla und das Triopion des Herodes Atticus’, ZPE 33: 7684.Google Scholar
Pelliccia, H. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & RuprechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pender, E. E. 2007a. ‘Sappho and Anacreon in Plato’s Phaedrus’, Leeds International Classical Studies 6: 4157.Google Scholar
Pender, E. E. 2007b. ‘Poetic allusion in Plato’s Timaeus and Phaedrus’, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 10: 2157.Google Scholar
Pendergraft, M. L. M. 1982. ‘Aratus as a Poetic Craftsman’, PhD Diss., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Pendergraft, M. L. M. 1990. ‘On the nature of the constellations: Aratus, Ph. 367-85’, Eranos 88: 99106.Google Scholar
Peradotto, J. 1990. Man in the Middle Voice. Name and Narration in the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perkell, C. G. 1989. The Poet’s Truth. A Study of the Poet in Virgil’s Georgics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, E. D. 1959. ‘The Comic Odysseus’, G&R 6: 5867.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. H. 1980. ‘The boneless one in Hesiod’, Philologus 124: 152–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierris, A. L. 2005., ‘Ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ and δίνη: nature and function of love and strife in the Empedoclean system’, in id. ed. The Empedoclean κόσμος: Structure, Process, and the Question of Cyclicality. Patras: Institute for Philosophical Research: 189224.Google Scholar
Platt, A. 1911. ‘Miscellanea’, CQ 5: 253–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podlecki, A. J. 1961. ‘Guest-gifts and nobodies in Odyssey 9’, Phoenix 15: 125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöhlmann, E. 1973. ‘Charakteristika des römischen Lehrgedichts’, ANRW 1.3: 813901.Google Scholar
Pontani, F. 2007. ‘Simonide e Amore (a proposito di PMG 575)’, Eikasmos 18: 119–42.Google Scholar
Porter, D. H. 1972. ‘Violent juxtaposition in the similes of the Iliad’, CJ 68: 1121.Google Scholar
Porter, H. N. 1946. ‘Hesiod and Aratus’, TAPA 77: 158–70.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 1992. ‘Hermeneutic lines and circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the exegesis of Homer’, in Lamberton, and Keaney, eds.: 67–114.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2016. The Sublime in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, L. H. 1993. Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar. Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Primavesi, O. 2004. ‘Der Held im Gleichnis: Zehn Ansichten der Odyssee’, in Hose, M. ed. Große Texte alter Kulturen: Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: 131–51.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. 1977. Hesiod and the Language of Poetry. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. 1982. ‘The proem of the Odyssey’, Arethusa 15: 3962.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. 1987. Odysseus Polytropos. Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Purcell, N. 1990. ‘Maps, lists, money, order and power’, JRS 80: 178–82.Google Scholar
Purves, A. C. 2010a. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, A. C. 2010b. ‘Wind and time in Homeric epic’, TAPA 140: 323–50.Google Scholar
Querbach, C. W. 1985. ‘Hesiod’s myth of the four races’, CJ 81: 112.Google Scholar
RabeH. 1913. Hermogenis OperaLeipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Radcliffe, W. 1921. Fishing from the Earliest Times. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauk, J. 1989. ‘Erinna’s Distaff and Sappho fr. 94’, GRBS 30: 101–16.Google Scholar
Ready, J. L. 2011. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ready, J. L. 2014. ‘Omens and messages in the Iliad and Odyssey: a study in transmission’, in Scodel, R. ed. Between Orality and Literacy: Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill: 2955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuffat, E. 1998. ‘Il proemio al terzo libro degli Halieutica e la biografia di Oppiano’, Studi Classici e Orientali 46: 559–84.Google Scholar
Rebuffat, E. 2001. ΠΟΙΗΤΗΣ ΕΠΕΩΝ: Tecniche di composizione poetica negli Halieutica di Oppiano. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Reckford, K. 1958. ‘Some appearances of the Golden Age’, CJ 54: 7987.Google Scholar
Redfield, J. M. 1975Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Reese, D. S. 2001. ‘Fish: evidence from specimens, mosaics, wall paintings and Roman authors’, in Jashemski, W. F. and Meyer, F. G. eds., The Natural History of Pompeii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 274–91.Google Scholar
Reitz, C. 2003. ‘Dichtung und Wissenschaft’, in Horster, M. and Reitz, C. eds. Antike Fachschriftsteller: Literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext. Stuttgart: Steiner: 6171.Google Scholar
Reitz, C. 2005. ‘Horaz’ Literaturbriefe und die Lehrdichtung’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 211–26.Google Scholar
Renehan, R. 1980. ‘Progress in Hesiod [Review of West (1978)]’, CP 75: 339–58.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. S. 1991. ‘Imperium romanum: empire and the language of power’, JRS 81: 19.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. 1990. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Richmond, J. 1973. Chapters on Greek Fish-Lore. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Ricks, C. 1976. ‘Allusion: the poet as heir’, in Brissenden, R. F. and Eade, J. C. eds. Studies in the Eighteenth Century III. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 209–40.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, M. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Robert, L. 1980. ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque impériale’, in Στήλη: τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος. Athens: Σωματείο οι φίλοι του Νικόλοαυ Κοντολέοντος: 1–20.Google Scholar
Robin, D. M. 1981. ‘The manuscript tradition of Oppian’s Halieutica’, BollClass 2: 2894.Google Scholar
Roellenbleck, G. 1975. Das epische Lehrgedicht Italiens im fünfzehnten und sechzehnten Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Humanismus und der Renaissance. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Rohdich, H. 1987. ‘Ein Gleichnis der Odyssee’, Antike und Abendland 23: 4552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romeri, L. 2000. ‘The λογόδειπνον: Athenaeus between banquet and anti-banquet’, in Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. eds. Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter: University of Exeter Press: 256–71.Google Scholar
Romm, J. S. 1992. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, G. P. 1979. ‘Odysseus’ barking heart’, TAPA 109: 215–30.Google Scholar
Rose, M. A. 1993. Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-Modern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. M. 1990. ‘Poetry and sailing in Hesiod’s Works and Days’, CA 9: 99113.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. M. 2004. ‘Aristophanes’ Frogs and the Contest of Homer and Hesiod, TAPA 134: 295322.Google Scholar
Ross, T. 1997. ‘“Pure poetry”: cultural capital and the rejection of Classicism’, Modern Language Quarterly 58: 437–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, C. P. 1976. ‘The kings and the Muses in Hesiod’s Theogony’, TAPA 106: 331–8.Google Scholar
Rothwell, K. S. 2007. Nature, Culture, and the Origins of Greek Comedy. A Study of Animal Choruses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, F. 1884. ‘De fontibus quibus Aelianus in Varia Historia componenda usus sit’, Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie 7: 1138.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1964. Longinus, ‘On the Sublime’. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1981. Criticism in Antiquity. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1990. ed. Antonine Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. and Konstan, D. 2005Heraclitus: Homeric Problems. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Rüter, K. 1969Odysseeinterpretationen: Untersuchungen zum ersten Buch und zur Phaiakis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, I. 1998. Canons of Style in the Antonine Age. Idea-Theory in its Literary Context. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. 2009. ‘The philosophy of the Odyssey’, in Doherty, L. ed. Homer’s Odyssey: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 155–88.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. G. 1905A Chapter in the History of Annotation (Scholia Aristophanica Vol. III)London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ruys, J. F., ed. 2008. What Nature Does Not Teach. Didactic Literature in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryberg, I. S. 1958. ‘Vergil’s golden age’, TAPA 89: 112–31.Google Scholar
SaïdS. 1979. ‘Les crimes des prétendants, la maison d’Ulysse et les festins de l’Odyssée’, in Saïd, S.Desbordes, F.Bouffartigue, J., and Moreau, A. eds. Études de littérature ancienne. ParisPresses de l’École Normale Supérieure: 949.Google Scholar
SaïdS. 2011. Homer and the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sale, W. 1966. ‘The popularity of Aratus’, CJ 61: 160–4.Google Scholar
Salmeri, G. 2000. ‘Dio, Rome, and the civic life of Asia Minor’, in Swain, S. ed. Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters, and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 5392.Google Scholar
Sammons, B. 2010. The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaliger, J. C. 1561. Poetices libri septem. Lyons: Vincentius.Google Scholar
Schade, G. 1999. Lykophrons ‘Odyssee’, Alexandra 648–819. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schein, S. 1970. ‘Odysseus and Polyphemus in the Odyssey’, GRBS 11: 7383.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. 1976. ‘Strabo on Homer’, Mnemosyne 29: 5264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. 1986. Review of Janko 1984, Gnomon 58: 212–17.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. 1991. ‘Figures and tropes. A border-case between grammar and rhetoric’, in Ueding, Gert ed. Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme des ‘Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik’. Tübingen: Niemeyer: 149–57.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. 1992. ‘Prose usages of Ἀκούειν “to read”’, CQ 42: 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1993. ‘Il destinatario discreto. Funzioni didascaliche e progetto culturale nelle Georgiche’, MD 31: 129–47.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1996. ‘Aratus’ myth of Dike’, MD 37: 926.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1997. ‘The boundaries of knowledge in Virgil’s Georgics, in Habinek, T. and Schiesaro, A. eds. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 6389.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A, Mitsis, P., and Clay, J. S. eds. 1993. Mega nepios: il destinatario nell’epos didascalico. (MD 31). Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Schindler, C. 2000. Untersuchungen zu den Gleichnissen im römischen Lehrgedicht: Lucrez, Vergil, Manilius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, C. 2005. ‘Vom Kochrezept zu den Sternen: Aspekte der Gattungsgenese und Gattungsentwicklung im römischen Lehrgedicht’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 193–209.Google Scholar
Schlunk, R. R. 1974. The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid. A Study of the Influence of Ancient Homeric Literary Criticism on Vergil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A.-M. 1938. La poésie scientifique en France au seizième siècle. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Schmitt, W. 1969. ‘Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Pseudo-Oppians Kynegetika’, PhD Diss., Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster.Google Scholar
Schmitt-Neuerburg, T. 1999. Vergils Äneis und die antike Homerexegese. Untersuchungen zum Einfluß ethischer und kritischer Homerrezeption auf imitatio und aemulatio Vergils. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. 1981 Lions, héros, masques: les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. G. 1776. Oppiani poetae Cilicis De venatione libri IV et De piscatione libri V etc. Strasbourg: König.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. G. 1813. Oppiani Cynegetica et Halieutica. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Scholfield, A. F. 1958Aelian, On the Characteristics of Animals, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schöner, R. 1873. ‘De Claudio Aeliano’. Diss., Breslau.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. 1982Review of Effe 1977, Mnemosyne 35: 400–2.Google Scholar
Schuler, R. M. 1979. English Magical and Scientific Poems to 1700: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schuler, R. M., and Fitch, J. G. 1983. ‘Theory and context of the didactic poem: some classical, mediaeval, and later continuities’, Florilegium 5: 143.Google Scholar
Schütze, R. K. 1935. ‘Beiträge zum Verständnis der Phainomena Arats’, PhD Diss., Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Schwabl, H. 1972. ‘Zur Mimesis bei Arat’, in Hanslik, R., Lesky, A., and Schwabl, H. eds. Antidosis. Festschrift für Walther Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag. Vienna, Cologne, and Graz: Böhlaus: 336–56.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. 2000–2001. ‘Clitophon the moichos: Achilles Tatius and the trial scene in the Greek novel’, Ancient Narrative 1: 93113.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. 2005. ‘Tragedy and epic’, in Bushnell, R. ed. A Companion to Tragedy. Malden: Blackwell: 181–97.Google Scholar
Scott, W. C. 1974. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. C. 2009. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Lebanon: University Press of New England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, C. 1971. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semanoff, M. 2002. ‘Pedagogical Poetry: Teachers and Students in Didactic Verse’, PhD Diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Semanoff, M. 2006. ‘Undermining authority: pedagogy in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. eds. Beyond The Canon. Hellenistica Groningana 11. Leuven: Peeters: 303–17.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. 2005. ‘Those who can, teach: Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and contemporary instructional writing’, in Horster, and Reitz, eds.: 243–63.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. D. R. 1980. Studies on the 5th and 6th Essays of Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A. D. R. 1984–1986. ‘Homonoia in the Greek cities of the Roman Empire’, Ancient Society 15.17: 229–52.Google Scholar
Shewan, A. 1927. ‘Fishing with a rod in Homer’, CP 22: 170–83.Google Scholar
Shorrock, R. 2001. The Challenge of Epic. Allusive Engagement in the Dionysiaca of Nonnus. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, D. 2014. ‘Didactic poetry: the Hellenistic invention of a pre-existing genre’, in Hunter, R., Rengakos, A., and Sistakou, E. eds. Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads: Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts. Berlin: De Gruyter: 1329.Google Scholar
Siegrist, C. 1974. Das Lehrgedicht der Aufklärung. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silk, M. S. 1974. Interaction in Poetic Imagery. With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva Sánchez, T. 1999. ‘El hexámetro de Opiano de Anazarbo y Opiano de Apamea’, PhD Diss., Universidad de Cádiz.Google Scholar
Siskin, C. 1998. The Work of Writing. Literature and Social Change in Britain, 1700–1830. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sistakou, E. 2012. The Aesthetics of Darkness. A Study of Hellenistic Romanticism in Apollonius, Lycophron and Nicander. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Smith, S. D. 2014. Man and Animal in Severan Rome. The Literary Imagination of Claudius Aelianus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 2005. ‘Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology: Morgan’s Canon and cladistics parsimony’, in Daston, L. and Mitman, G. eds. Thinking with Animals. New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press: 8599.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1966. ‘Aratus on the maiden and the Golden Age’, Hermes 94: 124–8.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 1993. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 2000. Emotion and Peace of Mind. From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sowinski, B. 1971. Lehrhafte Dichtung des Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spatafora, G. 2005, ‘Riflessioni sull’arte poetica di Nicandro’, GIF 57: 231–62.Google Scholar
Spatafora, G. 2007. Nicandro, Theriaká e Alexiphármaka. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Spiegelman, W. 1989. The Didactic Muse: Scenes of Instruction in Contemporary American Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staden, H. von. 1994. ‘Author and authority: Celsus and the construction of a scientific self’, in Vázquez Buján, M. E. ed. Tradición e innovación de la medicina latina de la antigüedad y de la Alta Edad Media. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela: 103–17.Google Scholar
Staden, H. von. 1998. ‘Gattung und Gedächtnis: Galen über Wahrheit und Lehrdichtung’, in Kullmann, W., Althoff, J., and Asper, M. eds. Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike. Tübingen: Narr: 6594.Google Scholar
Stanford, W. B. 1950. ‘Homer’s use of personal πολυ- compounds’, CP 45: 108–10.Google Scholar
Stanford, W. B. 1968. The Ulysses Theme: A Study in the Adaptability of a Traditional Hero. Second Edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. 2005. ‘Nautical matters: Hesiod’s Nautilia and Ibycus fragment 282 PMG’, CP 100: 347–55.Google Scholar
Steiner, G. 2005. Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, U. 2000. Poetische Theodizee. Philosophie und Poesie in der lehrhaften Dichtung im achtzehnten Jahrhundert. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. 1964. ‘Gattungen und Epochen der griechischen Literatur in der Sicht Quintilians’, Hermes 92: 454–66.